China and India, ancient allies and modern competitors, are rebuilding economic ties after almost five decades. Consequently, multinational companies face the most challenging—and potentially rewarding—business landscape ever.

Feature

A well-told story’s power to captivate and inspire people has been recognized for thousands of years. Peter Guber is in the business of creating compelling stories: He has headed several entertainment companies—including Sony Pictures, PolyGram, and Columbia Pictures—and produced Rain Man, Batman, and The Color Purple, among many other movies. In this article, he offers a method for effectively exercising that power.

For a story to enrapture its listeners, says Guber, it must be true to the teller, embodying his or her deepest values and conveying them with candor; true to the audience, delivering on the promise that it will be worth people’s time by acknowledging listeners’ needs and involving them in the narrative; true to the moment, appropriately matching the context—whether it’s an address to 2,000 customers or a chat with a colleague over drinks—yet flexible enough to allow for improvisation; and true to the mission, conveying the teller’s passion for the worthy endeavor that the story illustrates and enlisting support for it.

In this article, Guber’s advice—distilled not only from his years in the entertainment industry but also from an intense discussion over dinner one evening with storytelling experts from various walks of life—is illustrated with numerous examples of effective storytelling from business and elsewhere. Perhaps the most startling is a colorful anecdote about how Guber’s own impromptu use of storytelling, while standing on the deck of a ship in Havana harbor, won Fidel Castro’s grudging support for a film project.

China and India are burying the hatchet after four-plus decades of hostility. A few companies from both nations have been quick to gain competitive advantages by viewing the two as symbiotic. If Western corporations fail to do the same, they will lose their competitive edge—and not just in China and India but globally.

The trouble is, most companies and consultants refuse to believe that the planet’s most populous nations can mend fences. Not only do the neighbors annoy each other with their foreign policies, but they’re also vying to dominate Asia. Moreover, the world’s fastest-growing economies are archrivals for raw materials, technologies, capital, and overseas markets.

Still, China and India are learning to cooperate, for three reasons. First, these ancient civilizations may have been at odds since 1962, but for 2,000 years before that, they enjoyed close economic, cultural, and religious ties. Second, neighbors trade more than non-neighbors do, research suggests. Third, China and India have evolved in very different ways since their economies opened up, reducing the competitiveness between them and enhancing the complementarities.

Some companies have already developed strategies that make use of both countries’ capabilities. India’s Mahindra & Mahindra developed a tractor domestically but manufactures it in China. China’s Huawei has recruited 1,500 engineers in India to develop software for its telecommunications products. Even the countries’ state-owned oil companies, including Sinopec and ONGC, have teamed up to hunt for oil together.

Multinational companies usually find that tapping synergies across countries is difficult. At least two American corporations, GE and Microsoft, have effectively combined their China and India strategies, allowing them to stay ahead of global rivals.

Companies often begin their search for great ideas either by encouraging wild, outside-the-box thinking or by conducting quantitative analysis of existing market and financial data and customer opinions. Those approaches can produce middling ideas at best, say Coyne, founder of an executive-counseling firm in Atlanta, and Clifford and Dye, strategy experts at McKinsey. The problem with the first method is that few people are very good at unstructured, abstract brainstorming. The problems with the second are that databases are usually compiled to describe current—not future—offerings, and customers rarely can tell you whether they need or want a product if they’ve never seen it.

The secret to getting your organization to regularly generate lots of good ideas, and occasionally some great ones, is deceptively simple: First, create new boxes for people to think within so that they don’t get lost in the cosmos and they have a basis for offering ideas and knowing whether they’re making progress in the brainstorming session. Second, redesign ideation processes to remove obstacles that interfere with the flow of ideas—such as most people’s aversion to speaking in groups larger than ten. This article offers a tested approach that poses concrete questions. For example, what do Rollerblades, Häagen-Dazs ice cream, and Spider-Man movies have in common? The answer: Each is something that adults loved as children and that was reproduced in an expensive form for grown-ups. Asking brainstorming participants to ponder how their childhood passions could be recast as adult offerings might generate some fabulous ideas for new products or services.

Countless studies, workshops, and books have focused on leaders—the charismatic ones, the retiring ones, even the crooked ones. Virtually no literature exists about followers, however, and the little that can be found tends to depict subordinates as an amorphous group or explain their behavior in the context of leaders’ development. Some works even fail to sufficiently distinguish among varying types of followers—barely registering the fact that those who tag along mindlessly are a breed apart from those who are deeply devoted and consciously, actively involved. These distinctions have critical implications for the way leaders should lead and managers should manage, according to Kellerman, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Additionally, today’s followers are influenced by a range of cultural and technological changes that have affected what they want and how they view and communicate with their ostensible leaders.

In this article, Kellerman explores the evolving dynamic between leaders and subordinates and offers a typology that managers can use to determine and appreciate how their followers are different from one another. Using the level of engagement with a leader or group as a defining factor, the author segments followers into five types: Isolates are completely detached; they passively support the status quo with their inaction. Bystanders are free riders who are somewhat detached, depending on their self-interests. Participants are engaged enough to invest some of their own time and money to make an impact. Activists are very much engaged, heavily invested in people and process, and eager to demonstrate their support or opposition. And diehards are so engaged they’re willing to go down with the ship—or throw the captain overboard.

Pursuing a merger or acquisition is inherently difficult. Things get even harder when executives are blind to their own faulty assumptions, say Lovallo—a professor at the University of Western Australia Business School and a senior adviser to McKinsey—and three of his McKinsey colleagues. The authors identify biases that can surface at each step of the M&A process and provide practical tips for rising above them—an approach they call targeted debiasing.

During the preliminary due-diligence stage, biases abound. To overcome the confirmation bias, aggressively seek evidence that challenges your initial hypothesis about a deal. The best medicine for overconfidence in identifying revenue and cost synergies is to learn from precedents at your firm and others. Avoiding underestimation of cultural differences between your company and the target requires understanding the differences in the ways people interact at each organization. Misjudging the time and resources you need is at the core of the planning fallacy, which you can elude by formally identifying best practices and continually revisiting them. Finally, dilute conflict of interest by soliciting dispassionate external expertise.

The bidding phase is vulnerable to the winner’s curse, a phenomenon common in auctions. To avoid paying too much for a target, actively generate alternatives to the deal under consideration and develop a set of bidding cutoff rules.

After offering an initial bid, deal makers are susceptible to anchoring, whereby they remain attached to their original price estimate, and to the sunk cost fallacy that they’ve invested too much to stop now. The secret to overcoming both: Use your newly available access to the target’s books to better assess the investment case—and change your tune accordingly.

Forethought

Consumers of health care constitute a highly diverse market, but the idea that companies might segment customers and profit by addressing their varied needs seems almost foreign to the health industry. You can tap hidden value by making use of patterns in the demand for health products and services, especially if you segment consumers according to health and wealth at the same time.

A company’s ability to function during a flu pandemic is only as good as the weakest link in its supply chain. Hoffman-La Roche, the maker of a frontline antiviral drug, works closely with its suppliers to ensure that their preparedness plans are as robust as its own.

Executives of multinationals partnering with Chinese firms should be alert to Mao Zedong’s lingering influence on some of the country’s most successful executives—and, in particular, watch for a leadership tactic that can undermine a joint venture.

With so many management tools out there, from benchmarking to outsourcing, it’s hard to decide which ones to try. To help executives make informed choices, the authors compare levels of use and satisfaction for the most popular tools, and chart the evolution of a select few.

By watching a colleague assemble diverse, high-performing teams, the CEO of the Boston Consulting Group learned the art of nurturing individual strengths and steering team members away from tasks that would expose their weaknesses.

Marketers commonly estimate customer lifetime value in order to decide which customers are worth continued investment. But the way companies typically calculate that value is flawed because it overlooks the real option of abandoning unprofitable customers.

HBR Case Study

Venerable Detroit automaker Atida Motors has a new call center in Bangalore that the company hopes will raise its reputation for customer service. But it doesn’t appear to be doing so yet. Complaints about the Andromeda XL—the hip new model Atida hopes will capture the imagination of Wall Street—are flooding the call center. Call backlogs are building, and letters of complaint are piling up. One loyal Atida customer is so upset about getting the brush-off that he’s not only talking to a lawyer but threatening to go on YouTube and take his case to the court of public opinion. In the internet age, does Atida need a new way to deal with unhappy customers?

Tom Farmer, the creator of the unintentionally viral PowerPoint presentation “Yours Is a Very Bad Hotel,” says that Atida needs to stop defining customer service solely as a response to bad news and nip problems in the bud by making online dialogue intrinsic to the brand experience.

Nate Bennett, of Georgia Tech, and Chris Martin, of Centenary College, observe that Atida has violated its customers’ sense of fairness within three dimensions—distributive, procedural, and interactional—thus increasing their desire for revenge.

Lexus Vice President for Customer Service Nancy Fein thinks Atida isn’t even in the ballpark when it comes to world-class customer service. She offers as an example a Lexus rep who drove 80 miles to deliver $1,000 to a stranded Lexus owner whose purse had been stolen.

Barak Libai, of Tel Aviv University and MIT’s Sloan School, suggests that Atida invest in a CRM system so that it can determine which customers have enough purchasing and referral value to be given the red carpet treatment and which should be gently let go.

Different Voice

Unless you’re a hermit, you can’t avoid relationships. And your professional career certainly won’t go anywhere if you don’t know how to build strong, positive connections. Leaders need to connect deeply with followers if they hope to engage and inspire them.

Despite the importance of interpersonal dynamics in the workplace, solid research on the topic is only now beginning to emerge—and psychologist John M. Gottman, executive director of the Relationship Research Institute, is leading the way. His research shows that how we behave at work is closely related to how we behave at home.

Few people understand personal relationships better than Gottman, who has studied thousands of married couples for the past 35 years. He and his colleagues use video cameras, heart monitors, and other biofeedback equipment to measure what goes on when couples experience moments of either conflict or closeness. By mathematically analyzing the data, Gottman has provided hard scientific evidence for what makes good relationships.

In this interview with HBR senior editor Diane Coutu, Gottman emphasizes that successful couples look for ways to accentuate the positive: They try to say yes as often as possible. Even thriving relationships, however, still have room for conflict. Individuals embrace it as a way to work through essential personality differences. Gottman also points out that good relationships aren’t about clear communication—they’re about small moments of attachment and intimacy. Still, he warns, too much of a good thing can be a menace in the workplace, where simple friendships can spill over into emotional affairs.

Best Practice

Large organizations are by nature complex, but over the years new business challenges—globalization, innovative technologies, and regulations, to name a few—have conspired to add layer upon layer of complexity to corporate structure and management. Organizations have become increasingly ungovernable and unwieldy: Performance is declining, accountability is unclear, decision rights are muddy, and data are crunched repeatedly, often with no clear purpose in mind. To avoid frustration and inefficiency, executives need to systematically attack the causes of complexity in their companies.

Ashkenas and his partners at Robert H. Schaffer & Associates have worked with dozens of firms to help them develop strategies for simplifying. In this article, the author details the elements of a simplicity-minded strategy: Streamline the structure; prune products, services, and features; build disciplined processes; and improve managerial habits.

ConAgra Foods’ experience illustrates how one company turned itself around through careful execution of a simplicity strategy. The packaged-food supplier had become enormously successful by acquiring well-known brands and then allowing them to operate autonomously, evolving into a $14 billion organization with more than 100 brands, a food services business, and a commodity trading operation. ConAgra, however, had no common method for reporting, tracking, or analyzing results. Over time, therefore, it became a highly unwieldy enterprise, riddled with inefficiencies and unable to communicate adequately with investors and other stakeholders. When CEO Gary Rodkin came on board, in 2005, he invested in a series of initiatives to combat complexity. The tactic not only made life easier for customers and employees but also saved millions of dollars in costs.

This article has an online interactive questionnaire that can help you assess your own company’s level of complexity.

Tool Kit

Minor innovations make up most of a company’s development portfolio, on average, but they never generate the growth companies seek. The solution, says Day—the Geoffrey T. Boisi Professor of Marketing and a codirector of the Mack Center for Technological Innovation at Wharton—is for companies to undertake a systematic, disciplined review of their innovation portfolios and increase the number of major innovations at an acceptable level of risk.

Two tools can help them do this. The first, called the risk matrix, graphically reveals the distribution of risk across a company’s entire innovation portfolio. The matrix allows companies to estimate each project’s probability of success or failure, based on how big a stretch it is for the firm to undertake. The less familiar the product or technology and the intended market, the higher the risk.

The second tool, dubbed the R-W-W (real-win-worth it) screen, allows companies to evaluate the risks and potential of individual projects by answering six fundamental questions about each one: Is the market real? explores customers’ needs, their willingness to buy, and the size of the potential market. Is the product real? looks at the feasibility of producing the innovation. Can the product be competitive? and Can our company be competitive? investigate how well suited the company’s resources and management are to compete in the marketplace with the product. Will the product be profitable at an acceptable risk? explores the financial analysis needed to assess an innovation’s commercial viability. Last, Does launching the product make strategic sense? examines the project’s fit with company strategy and whether management supports it.

Explore other issues

Partner Center

The email and password entered aren’t matching to our records. Please try again, or reset your password. If you have a username from our previous site, start by using that. Please See our FAQ for more.

If you are signing in for the first time on the new HBR.org but have an existing account, please enter your existing user name and password to migrate your account.Please see Frequently Asked Questions for more information.